Google has announced Chrome for iOS. iPhone and iPad will both be supported, with each platform picking up what looks like an almost exact clone of Chrome for Android.

With Google's extensive sync features, Chrome on iOS extends the reach of Google's seamless cross-device browser experience, where history, tabs, passwords, and settings are made instantly and automatically available wherever you log in. What we don't know is if Chrome on iOS is still using the system-provided WebKit and JavaScript engine, or is using Google's own fork of WebKit and its V8 JavaScript engine.

The browser should become available on the App Store some time later today. Look for our review soon.

I really can't see it running V8, even if they could stuff it in there it'd be slower, unless they've made massive advancements on it.

The one thing I really want to know, will it be open source so my password manager can implement iOS Chrome rather than the really average browser they've built themselves and integrated into? Or other parties to make flavoured browsers of their choice?

I thought Apple would ban/block apps that "confused users" or "duplicated existing functionality." What's the agreement Google has with Apple that allowed them to push this through?

-- I'll look for examples but I remember something a few years about a different phone dialer getting pulled from the App Store because of the reasons above.

There are lots of browsers for iOS. I've got about a half dozen. I don't see any real difference in performance between them, except for what they're doing on features. This is just an additional one, abet a very popular one.

What we don't know is if Chrome on iOS is still using the system-provided WebKit and JavaScript engine, or is using Google's own fork of WebKit and its V8 JavaScript engine.

I can't speak for webkit, but I know that they can't use V8. Apple doesn't allow JITed code, and there isn't a JIT-less version of V8 (we've ran into the same issue at the company I work for w.r.t. V8/JavaScript Core on iOS). Given the relationship between the two companies, I find it extremely unlikely that Apple would make an exception for Google.

Chrome has been awesome on Android. I can't wait to try it on my ipad.

I'm in the same spot. Love it on my SGS2, anticipate it on my iPad2. The stock Safari is nice enough but I find myself using third party browsers more often. Looking forward to Chrome showing up on the Apple app store later.

Considering that Chrome for Android relies heavily on GPU rendering and a dll that is not included in older versions of the operating system: no. Unless they release a gimped version. The current version really does require a system update.

Just consider it another way to pressure carriers and phone manufacturers to keep their phones updated. Things like this make certain phones much more appealing than others, and as a carrier/manufacturer, you'd think you want your devices in that group.

You mean they've allowed other browsers to use a JIT for javascript[1]?

Without it there's a massive performance difference in certain scenarios...

1. and I mean even use the JIT they provide, IIRC you can't use one if you host a WebKit control and you aren't blessed by apple.

I use them, and as a practical matter, performance is about the same. A lot of what we see in tests doesn't come across in actual use. They all seem fine. A lot of the performance is tied up in network speeds and the hardware of the device itself. And when you get to a respectable speed, any more increases become much less of an issue.

This will be great for my wife's beloved and heavily used iPad 1 as she's a Chrome user on desktops. I really wish Apple would implement something akin to Android's "intents" though. That just makes the whole customisation process so much slicker. Unfortunately I don't see Apple giving up that piece of the cake.

There are lots of browsers for iOS. I've got about a half dozen. I don't see any real difference in performance between them, except for what they're doing on features. This is just an additional one, abet a very popular one.

One iOS browser in particular is faster than all the rest--the built-in Safari. It gets accelerated JavaScript; all the third-party ones do not. This is explained very well in some past Ars articles. The issue is that the accelerated one makes it extremely easy for a bad actor to jailbreak; it creates writable data pages that are marked as executable. Apple trusts that their own Safari guts will not exploit this loophole, but it's impossible to verify that third-party code running code from an external source will not leverage this loophole into an instant jailbreak.

I don't know if Chrome will be any different in this regard, but by the letter of the license, Apple is within their rights to reject them from the Store if they implement their own Javascript engine (executing untrusted code from an external source is always disallowed). And like all third-party apps it won't be able to access Apple's accelerated Javascript core.

Pretty sure 100% of Android devices won't support a version of Chrome built for iOS.

--

This is good news in that I prefer Chrome to Safari on my Mac. Bad news in that App Store restrictions prevent Google from working any of the voodoo that makes Chrome for Mac so dang fast. Call me when Apple eases up about this and we get a "true" Chrome for iOS.

Even if it is skinned, hopefully we get full support for Google Sync. Then I can stop manually importing my Chrome bookmarks into the desktop version of Safari just so they will sync to my iPad... not to mention all the other goodies like saved passwords (I doubt we get support for extensions).

I prefer the original Android browser over Chrome on my Galaxy Nexus for the simple fact that it has Flash. It doesn't have the incognito mode and no syncing but it is awesome for watching videos (comedy central).

I thought Apple would ban/block apps that "confused users" or "duplicated existing functionality." What's the agreement Google has with Apple that allowed them to push this through?

There was a big kerfluffle about this a few years ago. It was a brief and unloved policy and went away about 18 months ago, if I recall.

Then why did firefox have to build a skin on safari for iOS instead of firefox mobile?

The policy that went away is the one about duplicating functionality. The restriction on interpreted code (which is what prevents Chrome from running the V8 JavaScript engine, and from using its own variant of WebKit) is still alive and well.